Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources

Hi Bob,
in the past I've been using Collections Ontology [1] for ordered lists. It
is very similar to what has been discussed in Chicago but in a more
OWL/reasoner oriented way. And the items of the lists/sets are not
constrained. Of course you can specialize the general list/sets to
something more constrained if you wish. In the List, besides transitive
properties previous/next and similar we  introduced an item index so that
the SPARQL results could be sorted example:

 Query: “Give me all the papers and their respective authors ordered by
their positions.”

SELECT DISTINCT ?paper ?person

WHERE {         ?paper exterm:title ?title

; exterm:creator [ co:item [

co:index ?position

co:itemContent ?author ] ]
} ORDER BY ?title ?position

The 'co:index' represent the item index or position of the author in the
sequence of authors of a paper.

In general I agree with what you said at the end, it seems there is a
problem in accessing the elements of oa:List in order. I still see it as an
issue in a more current draft [2] related to SPARQL 1.1. It is probably
worth investigating the issue with somebody working at the RDF specs and
somebody working at SPARQL.

The only useful piece of info I found is the query:

SELECT * WHERE {
    ?list rdf:rest*/rdf:first ?member .
}

Which, however, does not seems returning the items in the 'list order'.

Paolo

[1] http://code.google.com/p/collections-ontology/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-property-paths/

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:

> With respect to the Multiple Resources model[1] that emerged in Chicago
>
> 1. It would be nice if the Issues List reflected what Rob's initial
> proposal morphed into, and the discussion continued there. (Rob: I'll have
> a try if you want...)
>
> 2. oa:Set and probably oa:List can profitably be applied to  a collection
> of oa:Annotations.  The use case is actionable annotations that are
> delivered to remote agents,  and upon which collections of expected actions
> must taken, possibly in a prescribed order.  This is particularly needed
> when actionable annotations will generate response annotations (e.g. "Agent
> Smart accepted all of your corrections in the oa:Set :mySet1 except the
> oa:item :mySet1.item10.").  If a collection of actionable annotations
> travels in a disconnected fashion, the annotation publisher can not easily
> (at all?) convey that a coordinated action is desired.  There may be an
> argument for ao:XOR on collections of annotations also.  It's likely that
> none of these collection types should be restricted to Target, Body, and
> Specifiers, as is perhaps being suggested in [1]
>
> 3.  Probably oa:List objects cannot(?) survive being put in a triple
> store, since order of identified nodes is not defined in the graph. [2] is
> a proposal to address the issue, but it is unclear how much traction it
> has. This means that  processing order for oa:List will depend on the
> serialization, not on the RDF.  I vaguely recall this was raised in
> Chicago, perhaps tabled for more discussion.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0004.html#start4
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws14
>
> Bob Morris
>
> --
> Robert A. Morris
>
> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
>
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard
> University.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.